Paging Janet Napolitano! Forget about those soldiers who are high risk for “domestic terrorists”.. The Panthers are making death threats! What’s that, Janet? They have to be white or you’re not suspicious of them, you say?

johndoenj

Are you kidding?

This is the black equivalent of the KKK threatening violent acts. If these words came from the KKK, the entire Obama administration would be all over them like flies on sh*t. Instead, we have the double standard of the Obama administration protecting a hate filled, overtly threatening, anti-American organization, simply because the group fits in with the Obama narrative.

Well I hope is satified now….he ended all discounts for everyone. The Water Park isn’t a government owned or operated one and the “separation of church and state” doesn’t apply to it. I wished the Water Park owners hadn’t caved in to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, because the foundation didn’t have a leg to stand on.

Well just after posting this aritcle, I ran across this one that says the discounts aren’t over and Willow Springs Water Park isn’t caving in to the Freedom From Religion foundation:

On Monday, TheBlaze spoke with David Ratliff, who owns Willow Springs and operates it with his wife, Lou Ann. While it was originally reported that the couple would be discontinuing their deal for faith groups — a choice that was initially praised by the FFRF — David said that this simply isn’t the case. While the owners removed the discount from their web site while they sought legal advice, it was never ceased.

“We never stopped it. We just pulled it off the web site,” David told TheBlaze. “In no uncertain terms, we are continuing this program, however Labor Day is the only Monday left [in the season].”

The owners, who are Christians, initially started the religious discount to try and drum up business. But, it wasn’t only for those who embrace religious beliefs, as individuals over the age of 50 and military members are also eligible. The idea to implement it, David says, was his wife Lu Ann’s.

“This was originally started out as a market test to see if we could beef up our business on Mondays,” David explained. “We chose these three different groups based on the need [and the] importance of military, the fact that people over 50 would bring other guests, [and the fact that, in the religious groups] people are generally well-behaved.”

“We’ve always given discounts to churches. Up to now, it’s never been questioned until this non-profit wanted to use this $5 thing,” he continued.

When the park told ROCAN that the group would not be eligible for the religious discount, David claims that one of the men who runs the organization threatened him with a lawsuit.

After David and Lou Ann were told that Willow Springs was breaking the law, they sought legal advice to see if they are on shaky ground. As a result, the couple is confident that they are operating within bounds and they will, thus, continue to offer the discount throughout next month.

As for next season — something that the FFRF expressed fear over — David said that he and his wife haven’t yet decided what they will do regarding the discount.

“We’ve got to sit down and look at it. We may want to put a little twist on it. We may want to do it in a different fashion,” he explained. “But whether or not we do it will not be based on what the Freedom From Religion [Foundation says].”

Now, no one gets the discount.

A water park in the heart of the Bible Belt is ending the $5-per-person discount it had been offering on its entrance fee to church groups after the head of a secular charity that caters to inner-city youths requested the same deal for its kids.

The Willow Springs Water Park in Little Rock, Ark., had been knocking a few dollars off the price of admission for people who came to the park with their church group. The entrance fee was lowered 50 percent to $5 for children who came in that context. However, when Leifel Jackson, executive director of Reaching Our Children and Neighborhoods (ROCAN), a secular non-profit that seeks to help inner-city youth, asked if the 35 kids he wanted to bring to the park could get the same discount, he was rebuffed by a park office worker.

The park, which hosts Bible camps throughout the summer and has long catered to church groups, charges $15 for adults, $10 for children under 15 years of age, and $9-a-head for groups over 15 people. The park knocks $6 off admission for firefighters, law enforcement and members of the military.

Undeterred, Jeff Poleet, a second ROCAN administrator, phoned David Ratliff, Willow Spring Water Park’s owner, to complain about what he felt was a discriminatory practice.

As a result, Ratliff decided to cancel the church-group discounts, rather than give ROCAN the same rebate on the park entrance fee.
Everbody, in effect, was going to have to pay the regular $10 cost for children attending the water park – and no one was going to get the old deal.
But the story doesn’t end there.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, a national non-profit dedicated to the separation of church-and-state, got wind of what had happened, and a lawyer from the group fired off a letter to Ratliff, informing him that he’d better not reinstitute the discount for church groups in the future, or on a ‘covert’ basis. (If that was me, I’d just have to take them up on that threat, because they’d lose big time.)

This isn’t the first time, of late, that a business has gotten in hot water for offering discounts to faith-based organizations.

A Pennsylvania atheist filed a grievance with the state’s Human Relations Commission this summer after he learned that Prudhomme’s Lost Cajun Kitchen in Columbia was offering a 10 percent discount on meals to people who brought their church bulletin with them.

“I did this not out of spite, but out of a feeling against the prevailing self-righteousness that stems from religion, particularly in Lancaster County,” John Wolff, a retired electrical engineer, told the Intelligencer Journal of his decision to go toe-to-toe with the restaurant.

Why don’t our Tennessee legislators and AG do this type thing as well instead of caving in to the EPA. This ruling is a victory for Texas jobs and confirms what we’ve said from the start – that the EPA’s actions were baseless and nothing more than a federal power grab by an administration that is desperate to extend its control over businesses, with no regard for the consequences of their actions.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency’s disapproval of Texas’ Flexible Permits program was not supported by the Clean Air Act.

Under the Flexible Permits program, which had been in place since 1994, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality put a cap on allowed emissions from oil refineries and other industrial plants by facility. EPA officials announced in 2010 that they disapproved of the program because it might allow major polluters to exceed federal standards, record-keeping was inadequate and the methodology for calculating the emissions cap was unclear. As a result, those flexible permits were no longer accepted under the Clean Air Act. The facilities that already possessed flexible permits were subject to federal fines.

In the opinion, the court called the EPA’s disapproval of Texas’ program “untimely” and said it “unraveled approximately 140 permits” issued under the program. The court said the EPA’s reasoning was mainly based on wording, and not actual standards or procedures.

“A state’s ‘broad responsibility regarding the means’ to achieve better air quality would be hollow indeed if the state were not even responsible for its own sentence structure,” the court says in the opinion.

The opinion says the EPA must further consider the program.

The TCEQ praised the decision, calling it a “victory for Texas, our environment and our economy.”

“The court recognized the important principles that the EPA must comply with the cooperative federalism envisioned by the federal Clean Air Act and its own administrative procedures in order to bring certainty to the states and regulated communities,” said Terry Clawson, a TCEQ spokesman.

A request for comment was not immediately returned by the EPA.

The Texas Oil and Gas Association and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott also voiced support for the decision.

Recently released FAA documents have raised yet more questions surrounding the opening up of US skies to unmanned surveillance drones.

Thousands of pages of FAA experimental drone flight records that were obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) detail just how complicated it would be to operate thousands of unmanned arial vehicles safely without spending billions of dollars.

The documents, received by CIR through the Freedom of Information Act, discuss at length the fact that drones do not have sophisticated collision-avoidance systems and pose more of a threat to other aircraft because their pilots are on the ground with limited visual contact.

Experienced California mechanic and pilot Mel Beckman, tells CIR that drone aircraft are problematic because pilots are required to “see and avoid,” – in other words, literally keep an eye out for other aircraft.

“There’s no way for a drone pilot to do that,” Beckman said. “He’s on the ground, and he’s looking through a small aperture. Yes, the camera can swivel a little bit, but it’s nothing like the panoramic view the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) envisioned when they expected pilots to maintain their own visual surveillance.”

Thousands of tiny unmanned aircraft or drones flying into civilian airspace over the United States can pose a security threat as they may be difficult to monitor in the long run and some craft may fall into enemy hands, security analysts say.

Although debate over the use of surveillance drones, approved by Congress this week, centers on civil liberties and individuals’ rights, a much greater risk of hostile drones entering U.S. airspace undetected isn’t being considered, analysts said.

The Federation Aviation Administration said up to 30,000 drones could be in airspace shared with airliners carrying passengers.

Current lobbying for the drones insists there will be enough qualified experts to operate the drones safely and not endanger airborne human traffic but there are many questions unanswered about how the drone operators would be regulated.

More important, at a time when government defense cutbacks are the norm, little consideration is being given to potentially unfathomable costs of maintaining a vast fleet of drones, their monitors and operators and the whole regulatory framework required to run the system efficiently and safely.

There is risk, too, that terrorists will attempt to penetrate the drone network with unpredictable consequences for the safety of the set-up as well as citizens, analysts said.

Once the bill has been signed by U.S. President Barack Obama, the FAA Reauthorization Act will allow the FAA to give drone traffic the go-ahead and develop regulations for testing and licensing by 2015.

The expectations are that the law eventually will streamline processes for multilevel licensing of drone flights by federal, state and local police and other government agencies.

The legislation follows vigorous campaigning by defense and security industries that see drones as a multibillion-dollar growth area.

The defense and security industries have already made up for declining revenues in direct defense acquisitions by developing new business to counter cyberthreats, border body scanners and giant merchandise scanners and a range of software to counter Internet fraud, identity fraud called phishing and hacking of sensitive corporate and government data.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the legislation could severely undermine Americans’ privacy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation echoed those privacy concerns.